Comments
on the Persian SphinxAmir Abbas Hoveydaand
the Riddle of the Iranian RevolutionA Book by Abbas Milani

This article is an abridged version
of a critical analysis of the failed quest for justice 27 years ago, and
the inherent dangers in relying upon pre-revolutionary propaganda and
general word of mouth in charting our future. I conclude that disseminating
gross exaggeration amounts to a falsehood and ultimately is detrimental
to ones own political agenda.

I
came across this biography of Amir Abbas Hoveyda by Abbas Milani that
appeared at first glance an excuse by the author to vent his anger against
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and the rigid authoritarian hierarchy that has characterizes
Iranian government for millennia.

Well
written the book certainly is. The author has a writing talent and intellect
that I cannot match. I quite liked how it evoked emotion and revulsion
at the murder of such friendly personality as Mr. Hoveyda.

Factual
the book most certainly is not. Yes it does make a good read.
It sounds logical and well grounded in facts and also evokes many memories.
Never the less, as much as I wanted to skip the petty points, which I
had already heard ad nauseam, and read about Mr. Hoveyda it became clear
that the key conclusions derived in this book are based on village gossip
and the book has an agenda which is a bit difficult to decipher at first.

It
would seem to the casual reader the book is out to tarnish the reputation
of who the Iranians now call "Khoda biamorz" (God Bless him),
using Court Minister Hoveyda's life as an excuse. In fact, as I intend
to show, it falsely presents the very structure of the modern Iran created
by Reza Pahlavi from the biased political view of someone who in his youth,
as a follower of imaginary, idealistic and untested philosophy of Marxism,
Leninism and Maoism (2)combined, was preaching the massacre of
the wealthy and respectable people.

In
this book I found a gold mine. It articulates the political motives behind
the people delighted by the book and an eloquent display of their
character at the same time. I believe it is necessary to bring to
light the weakness of such gossip, present an insight from those involved
on some issues raised, and show how spreading gossip and this casual lying
that is a staple of middle eastern politics, ultimately hurts all us Iranians.

The
author attempts at presenting an investigation on the past by using reports
produced by the very same country whose reports (partial presented in
this book) reflect their attempts towards the removal of the government
(Shah, Hoveyda and the rest of the team).

From
the political point of view this book has no added value since it simply
regurgitates the western media’s campaign of darkening the Pahlavi’s reputation
that started soon after the oil price hikes initiated by OPEC in Tehran.

Any
comments about the Shah which do not give a single
consideration to what American, British and Soviet Union’s interests were
and which also fails to give consideration to their common and divergent
views, their undercover competitive operations and also the general condition
of the Iranian society would be a political stunt by the author, not history,
biography or analysis with an academic value.

If
you are patient and read my comments below, to the Persian sphinx by Abbas
Milani, the Iranian revolution will remain a riddle no more.

Despite
the fact that the author, in the preface, writes in a manner to show he
is a knowledgeable person who uses the view of those who know the power
of words and who are familiar with research work to avoid ideological
tendency and who are “Catholic” in wise use of words to present an unbiased
writing, and also having used the help of people like Mr. Fereydoun Hoveyda,
Mr. Cyrus Ghani, Mr. Ebrahim Golestan and Mr. Ahmad Ghoreyshi, and by
admiring their charactersycophantically(6)gives
credit to his own writing, every time he mentions the name of Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi, even when he points to a real fact, he does it in a poisonous
and childish way. For example:

From
the first paragraph of the first chapter:

a
– “Fearing for their lives, the royal family fled Iran on January
16th 1979. They took with them much of their personal belongings, including
the royal dog. Their long trusted prime minister, however, they chose
to leave behind”.(p21) "He was sacrificed to save his throne”.

What
is the purpose of this manner of explanation?

1.)
Does the author himself not state that when Mr. Hoveyda resigned as Secretary
of States for the Royal Court, the Shah suggested sending him abroad as
the Ambassador to Belgium, but Mr. Hoveyda did not accept the offer. (p.
294)

2.)
Does the author himself not state that France’s head of National Assembly
sent a message to Mr. Hoveyda, stating we are certain that the situation
will get much worse, and invited him to France, but Mr. Hoveyda did not
accept this invitation. (p295)

3.)
Does the author himself not state that childhood life in foreign countries
had created a trauma that convinced Mr. Hoveyda to live in Iran and never
leave Iran, with such significance that on the eve of the Islamic revolution,
when he was offered a chance to leave Iran, he did not choose the life
in exile? (p. 47)

4.)
Does the author himself not state that with the Iranian army’s declaration
of neutrality, Hoveyda’s guards decided to escape themselves. They left
behind the key to a car and a pistol, and urged Mr. Hoveyda to flee as
well. Hoveyda demurred. (p. 304)

5.)
Does the author himself not state that Hoveyda asked Mrs. Ensha, his cousin,
to arrange for his surrender to the new authorities. He called his wife
in Paris and said I have nothing to fear. I have decided to turn myself
in. (p. 304)

6.)
Did not Mr. Riazi, the head of Parliament, who was abroad during the revolution,
based on the same kind of reasoning, return to Iran?

Further,
did or could the execution of Mr. Hoveyda save the throne? Is
sending someone to prison, called sacrificing him? Was only Mr. Hoveyda
sent to prison? What were people demanding of the government in those
days? Does the author himself not state that Mr. Ardeshir Zahedi and his
group, Mr. Manuchehr Azmun, Mr. Hushang Nahavandi, Mr. Mohamad Baheri,
General Oveysi and some of the other generals, were requesting that Mr.
Hoveyda should be sent to prison? (p. 296-8) Is going to court and the
answering of the accused for their actions, unjustified?

The
facts under these circumstances were that the Shah held talks with Mr.
Hoveyda, suggesting that for his own security it was in his own interests,
as well, to be kept in a safe house (as stated in the book) on the basis
that later he will be answerable to a court of law. The Shah knowing full
well that the Iranian people will find him innocent of most accusations
hurled at him by his opponents and probably forgive any mistake he may
have made in office. It was the mullahs that moved him to a prison with
bars.

Has
the author not seen the Royal families personal belonging at Niavaran
palace, and the Pahlavi foundations wealth donated to an Islamic trust
under Iranian jurisdiction? And we all saw the official ceremonial departure
of the royal family, and the armies show of loyalty. Some of us heard
at that time the worrisome statement of the BBC television news broadcaster
who stated that the Shah has four generals who can still crush the rebellion,
if hinted at by the Shah. With angry security forces waiting for a signal
to put their foot down and confused as to why they are told not defend
themselves, the Royal Family fled fearing their lives!? Eight months after
the Shah had left Iran the nervous and paranoid government in Iran was
still frightened of the possibility of an ill and dying Shah returning
to power. In Algeria, Mehdi Bazargan asked Zbigniew Brzezinski if Iranian
doctors be allowed to examine the Shah, now in New York, to determine
if he was really ill, or if it was only a ruse to disguise a plot to return.

The
Shah’s horse, selected as the most handsome horse in a 1975 Paris show,
whom they did not take with them, was blinded and later destroyed by the
movement the author calls Islamic!

From
the second page of the first chapter:

b
- The author writes, “the Shah’s Italian tailor was also Mr.
Hoveyda’s tailor for many years. Lest to appear impertinent to the Shah,
who in the word of one observer (Marvin Zonice) suffered from narcissistic
grandiosity, Hoveyda remained discreet about it”. (p. 22)

The
ambiguity? Was the case of the Shah’s Italian tailor a secret case? Was
he only the Shah’s tailor for the case to be kept discreet by Mr. Hoveyda
or did many, many others use this tailoring service?

Mr.
Marvin Zonice, an American security expert, who could not tolerate the
refusal by the Shah to adhere to the views of the American government,
and instead carried out the speediest economic expansion, would blame
the Shah for having narcissistic grandiosity! But
why would an Iranian, unless he is a gossip monger and acts as a loudspeaker
for western foreign policy, consider the desire by the Shah to remedy
the economic backwardness, in the shortest possible time as narcissistic
grandiosity.

c-
The author writes, “the young monarch was shy and timid, ill-fitted to
fill the shoes of his domineering parent. There is a picture that captures
the problematic father and son relationship. Taken in 1926 the father
is 48 and the son 7. The contrast between them is striking in every respect.
The huge, powerful Shah-father stand sulkily, predominant, hand on his
hips, and beside him the small pale boy, frail, nervous, obediently standing
at attention”. (p. 84).

Who
else but a jealous, devious person, and they who take advantage of those
who gossip, and who try to throw mud at the leadership to destroy it,
would present the official picture of Reza Shah Kabir and his pre-pubescent
son as reflecting the character of the grown up son?

d
- The author writes “Hoveyda had developed the habit of having
most of his confidential and many of his intimate conversation in European
languages. May be that was one of the reasons the Shah, no less a Francophile,
grew to feel comfortable with Hoveyda. Speaking French or English, might
have been part of their implicit camaraderie; they were both exile in
their own country, at home only in Europe of their imagination.” (p. 175)……They
were both out of sync with the deeply traditional and often religious
centre of gravity that defined Iranian culture. …..The two men. …..embarked
on a radical program, changing the socioeconomic foundation. …..The foreign
language the two men used when talking about matters of state was an indication
of this estrangement. (p. 176) ….. As the tempo of modernization increased,
as the Shah grew more authoritarian in his style of rule, as he became
more distant, haughty and self referential in his manner, he moved farther
and farther away from the traditional centre of the city.

When I speak English or French
it is to maintain privacy from the waiter or taxi driver and I am no less
Iranian when I write in English as if I were to write in Persian. It is
my suggestion that the use of foreign language between the Shah and Mr.
Hoveyda was to maintain the privacy and secrecy of the talks from domestic
staff as well as just to practice a foreign tongue.

Further,
does using foreign language represents one’s distancing from his nationality?
What does the author mean by the deeply traditional and often religious
centre of gravity that defines Iranian culture? Do the Islamic Republicans
in anyway represent Iranian culture? More importantly, at what period
was the behaviour of the aristocracy, bazaary, labourers, farmers and
the clergy the same, and what criteria exist to present the clergy as
Iranian culture? Which one of the aristocrats has been following the bazaary
way of life, and which semi-educated person ever took the clergy talks
as serious?

Does
the author not refer to the recommendation of the American Embassy to
the President Lyndon Johnson, stating that the Iranian educated group
do not have respect for Islam and feel uncomfortable about religious discussions.
(p. 229) Is culture basically fixed and does it not continuously change
with the increase of knowledge and the change of technology. The printing
industry and the ease with which information spread, together with economic
expansion and the increase of income in Europe and America helped the
lower strata of the society to imitate what the aristocracy considered
the proper way of living. Today too, with the spread of information and
becoming familiar with the way other people live, the change in the habits
and behaviour of different populations are noticeable.

What
has caused the author to suggest that in Iran, replacing the way of life
of those who shaped national Iranian culture based on truth and justice
with the way of life of the least educated, who use terror with the help
of the rogue, can be considered as a movement toward Iranian culture??
This I suggest might be the influence on the author of new friends he
has found in America.

Was
Marmar Palace built in the centre of the town? Did the transfer of the
Shah’s living quarter from Marmar Palace to Niavaran have a decreasing
effect on the Shah’s audiences?

These
kinds of statements referred to above show that the author’s intention
is not to write a biography for Mr. Hoveyda, but his main aim is propaganda
of what he has learned from activists abroad, aimed at darkening the reputation
of imperial symbols in Iran, and assist in laying the roots of a new national
culture. Not forgetting that in politics, perception and rumour is
as important as reality. Rumours do not only takes the shape of reality
but it becomes a tool of political and undercover warfare. Long before
one is judged in a revolutionary court, ones personality is being killed
by the corrosive power of rumour. Every terrifying thought, every unpleasant
political tendency, and every hidden undesirable tendency is blamed on
those involved in politics.

It
is a calamity when this kind of thinking finds buyer among the educated,
and this kind of person becomes a storyteller for a society that accepts
gossip instead of facts for scholarly work. This is why I have
now put pen to paper. Let me continue.

Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi was a man who with all the domestic and foreign problems
that the country was faced with took charge of the leadership of a country
that, as the author says, annual income per capita of its residents was
$174, and the day he left the country, he had raised it to more than $2400
(18)
(real-terms equivalent of $6,000 today) or put more simply:

The
average Iranian was one of the wealthiest in the 3rd world. We even imported
doctors from Pakistan, drivers from Korea, labourers from Turkey and Afghanistan,
had one of the best trained and best equipped military forces in the world
and at the very same time the country had one of the largest capital reserves
in the whole world. The future of our young was bright.

From
1963 to 1977 our GNP went from 340bn rials to 5682bn rials, a 16 fold
increase in 15 years. In this period we had a 13.8% compound growth rate
in savings (from 45bn to 1509bn). And by 1974 we were listed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) as the 13th wealthiest country in the world.

This
makes him a dictator and despot to those who’s political motives objected
to a patriarchic society with a strong economy and military. For ordinary
Iranians he was benevolent and with high wishes for his country. He should
be praised for this. The observation of world-wise tourist in our country
was also that the Shah of Iran was a good man completely dedicated to
the welfare of his people and the Iranian masses loved and supported him.

What
I propose to you the reader to assume is that such manipulation of history
by the underwriters of the Islamic Revolution will continue. And
we will continue to hear what theoretically, based on unreal assumptions,
seem right.

When looking to blame
someone else for our failures 23 years ago, we must not forget that collectively,
all of us can be regarded as being "guilty". Guilty of gutlessness
and indifference by our very own national standards. We have surrendered
completely and passively to the violation of our Identity, Culture and Civilization
by the Islamic invasion, initiated over 1500 years ago by the Bedouin Arab
invader, and then a second time with the help of blatantly biased views,
such as this one presented, by a person who wants to become a storyteller
for a society that accepts gossip instead of facts for scholarly work.

This book articulates the political motive
behind the people so delighted by it.

It is also an eloquentdisplay
of their character at the same time.

From the political point
of view this book has no added value since it simply regurgitates the
western media’s campaign of darkening the Pahlavi’s reputation that started
soon after the oil price hikes initiated by OPEC in Tehran.

The author has the cheek
and cunning to so blatantly use the book titled Hoveyda’s biography,
at destroying the reputation of the very same King and Queen that Hoveyda
had such camaraderie with! And an imperial institution that he showed
the ultimate loyalty to.

Did or could the execution of Mr. Hoveyda
save the throne?

What has caused the author to suggest that
replacing a society based on truth and justice with the way of life of
the least educated, who use terror with the help of the rogue, can be
considered as a movement toward Iranian culture??

In politics, perception and rumour is as
important as reality.

It is a calamity when this kind of thinking
finds buyer among the educated, and this kind of person becomes a storyteller
for a society that accepts gossip instead of facts for scholarly work.